Co-Governance and European New Zealanders

New Zealand, Uncategorized Leave a comment

Introduction

The Arden years are over but she leaves behind a legacy of cultural change that has literally redefined the nation, and will continue to set the legal, cultural and political direction for decades to come.

Chris Hipkins now leads Labour, for now. In October Labour’s chickens are likely to come home to roost resulting in a Labour political bloodbath as National/Act assume the throne, and the baubles of office are thrown to the other partner in the political tag team we call politics. No apologies for my cynicism I’m afraid, but it was National that started this mess. Labour just acted on the groundwork National had already prepared.

The purpose of this article is to explore the relevance of the Maori push for co governance for European New Zealanders. What is the source of this drive? Who or what is behind it and what can we expect as a social and cultural outcome for European New Zealanders. What will New Zealand be like in 5 or 10 years time?

Government Sponsored Co-Governance.

A booklet published by 1Law4All enumerates ninety five dates from 1975 to 2017 cataloguing the implementation of race based legislation in New Zealand. It’s worth reading although not necessary here to site every example of this trend, only to point out the milestones along the way and to emphasise that this trend is not partisan but speaks to much deeper cultural and ideological issues.

The genealogy of this voracious beast goes back to 1975 with the establishment of the Waitangi Tribunal by the Treaty Of Waitangi Act 1975.

A simple reading of the Treaty Of Waitangi would not lead one to believe a full and fair implementation of said treaty would produce an apartheid system of dual Government in New Zealand, but one would be wrong! When the crown abrogates its responsibility to protect the interests of all New Zealanders and hides behind a faux commitment to detached analysis, and deliberately ignores historical documents that would put the Treaty in it’s proper context, at that point it becomes a relatively trivial matter for subversive elements to take advantage of a culture that has apparently lost the will to live. It becomes difficult to avoid the conclusion that successive governments have been on a mission to deliberately make themselves – and the New Zealand tax payer- responsible for terrible crimes against an innocent Maori population for which we must all now make reparations.

A psychological deep dive into why this is so, is beyond the scope of this present work. A good place to start looking though- for those with the tenacity and interest might be the universities of the West in the 1960’s, particularly in the US; names like Herbert Marcuse, Adorno, Horkheimer et al and the rise of cultural Marxism. When the gates of your culture fall into the hands of foreign interests one should not be surprised to find that things start to head south in all manner of unexpected ways.

There is a world view composed of a nexus of ideas responsible for the intellectual cowardice that has permeated our legal and political class. Contemporary Christianity, The Holocaust, collective guilt, extreme objectivity, enlightenment psychology. The desire for the redeeming glow of atonement, virtue signalling and the value of moral purity. These are some of the interconnected ideas and motives that have undercut European self worth. It is theoretically possible to let go of these all at once but the thought that one might fall into the pit of hell whilst doing so all but renders the act impossible.

As stated, this strange detachment and assumed moral superiority, this subtle negation of your own group interests has led to the general acceptance of basic propositions that are fundamentally at odds with our own national and group interests.

What steps have all governments and the administrative state taken since 1975 to prepare the way for He Puapua and the full implementation of a split racist society?

  • By accepting that there are two treaties (‘Te Teriti o Waitangi’ and the Freeman document).
  • By knowingly using the wrong English language document as the Treaty (Freeman instead of Littlewood).
  • By accepting wrong word definitions. (Taonga)
  • By allowing miss interpretations of the language of the treaty to extract a promise of preferential protection for all things Maori. I.e. they extract from the words of the treaty a literal obligation to provide an apartheid and Maori supremacist regime.
  • By Accepting the doctrine of contra proferentem to allow rulings to go against the crown. Rather than a contract law ‘Mistake’ which would render the contract void ab initio (invalid, a nullity).

These are just some of the ideological positions that all governments since 1975 have taken that have enabled the development of the Co-Government legislation and narrative that supports it. Further to that is a whole stream, a continuous legislative avalanche of Acts and rulings – see the aforementioned booklet from 1Law4All– that have developed since 75 that have been embedded in our legal system and prepared the way for the Co-Governance pièce de résistance, the He Puapua document of 2019. Finally in He Puapua we have an explicit statement of intent to restructure New Zealand society on racial lines, a legal deference to Maori authority at national and local body level. (The Rangatiratanga Sphere with right of veto.)

The HePuapua programme intends to implement by 2040 a completely separate system of government to service the needs of Maori identified New Zealanders to the exclusion of all others. But it is more even than that. The promise to prioritise Tikanga Maori and te au Maori in full will mean in practical terms the construction of an entirely separate country within the body of an existing governing structure. A parasite culture that will feed off and control by right of veto the host culture. I have said it before and it bears repeating here that what Maori activists want is not separation or even ‘equality’ but rather … “What they want is Cultural hegemony, Legal authority and Economic power over the existing social structure. In essence; to reverse the Treaty so that they become sovereign while the Pakeha carries the obligation.” – He Puapua and Nationalism.

The practical realities of the full implementation of He Puapua is that the legally embedded treaty partner has veto authority on legislation from central government right down to local city councils. The legal system is dominated by a commitment to Tikanga, and to prioritising te au Maori (the Maori World). Same thing with all government departments committed to embracing Matauranga Maori (Maori world view), leading to explicit preferential treatment in all areas of civic life for New Zealanders who can claim Maori decent. Neither I nor 85% of the population can do that.

Government, people, territory and culture.

In essence we are talking about the construction of an entirely new country, because it is more than government autonomy, the plan encompasses legal, legislative, economic, territorial and cultural independence — that is the definition of a country, a self identified ethnostate. Yet one that occupies the same territory of an existing state and is funded and defended by that host state.

This Cultural Parasitism is a strange cultural anomaly that has come into being with the willing encouragement of the parent/host state. He Puapua demands a separate system to provide exclusively for Maori Healthcare, Education, Government, Welfair and a separate Maori court system based on Tikanga Māori, its not just courts of Law but an entire system of justice based on the vague notion of tribal Tikanga.

One might respond that this is all well and good if a certain section of the community chooses to identify as Maori and live under a different legal framework, but this is the creation of an entirely new country that will subsume and replace New Zealand. I even encounter may naive and well meaning New Zealanders who still fail to see any threat at all, they pepper their speech with the new Maori words and even acquire the same swirling Maori tattoos happily becoming white Maori believing they are embracing the new nation of Aotearoa.

The emerging civilisation is racist by definition, one in which whiteness is disparaged and regarded at the very least with suspicion. Many new Zealanders fought physically against an apartheid system in south Africa where they believed the majority was being oppressed by a minority. Yet in New Zealand we stand silent whilst an apartheid system is created in our own country where the majority – none-Maori New Zealander will be legally discriminated against by a minority Maori government. The consistent factor between the two examples is the removal of European Whites from government.

The new emergent culture will be based on Guilt and Grievance, with the aggrieved in charge constantly seeking and taking reparations from the guilty.

From the He Puapua document;

  • “There will be greater relinquishment of Crown-assumed exclusive Kawanatanga authority over land, resources and taonga.”
  • “Tikanga Maori will be functioning and applicable across Aotearoa under Maori authority and also, where appropriate, under Crown/kawanatanga authority”
  • “There will be an enlarged iwi/hapu/whanau estate, supported by significantly increased return of crown lands and water, including takutai moana, to Maori ownership (in addition to Treaty of Waitangi settlements).”

Point 8 in the Introduction to He Puapua points out that “He Puapua only forms the first step towards a declaration plan.“ There is obviously a lot more of this to come. The evident attitude of the report writers is clearly that the interests of other New Zealanders are of little consequence, we appear merely as those who will be socialized and it is the governments job and treaty obligation to ‘socialize’ the rest of us to accept the imposition of this new country .

The governments job and treaty obligation where other new Zealanders are concerned is merely to socialise us into the passive acceptance of the imposition of Aotearo onto the country we used to call New Zealand.

Wakameninga Maori government.

The Wakameninga Maori Government supports the interests of New Zealanders of Maori decent. It reflects a system of government that seems to be genuinely interested in the furtherance and welfare of the Maori people, and so it should, it’s the Maori government after all. Having said that, a traditional system of Maori government based on Tikanga, hereditary chiefs in consultation with iwi and hapu is unlikely to be compatible in the long run with a contemporary liberal democracy. Nepotism and internecine tribal violence seems to be hard wired into the Tikanga system and was one major reason why the chiefs sought English Law and a treaty with the crown in the first place.

“The Wakaminenga Maori Government was established in 1983 as a continuance of various entities such as the Native Government of Nu Tireni and the Kohimarama parliament that was formed in the latter part of the 19th century.”

WMG Website

It claims to be the linear descendent of the various attempts at forming a unified Maori government that date as far back as Busby’s unsuccessful 1835 attempt to form a workable government with the Confederation of United Tribes of New Zealand. That intended government never met and within 18 months civil war broke out between the signatories to that declaration, succinctly putting the lie to the myth of Maori unity at the time. The legacy of that attempt is He Wakaputanga, the declaration of independence on which the current Wakaminenga movement bases its authority.

There were continuing efforts after 1835 to form Kotahitanga (unity) governments largely as efforts to repudiate land sales. The Kīngitanga movement starting in the 1850’s was also motivated by opposition to land sales and led directly to the land wars of the 1860’s

Maori Governemnt movements From 1870 to 1900 ;

Kihimarama parliament 1879
Waitangi Parliament 1881
Māori Parliament 1892
Kauhanganui 1890

The motivating factor was always land sales. If the land had been stolen, or taken without consent, then there is a case to make against the crown. But these are transactions between willing sellers and buyers. The point worth making here is that the Maori as a group could not get ahead of the sales, to stand between the Crown and the Maori sellers. All these attempts at presenting a united front to government were short lived and ineffective. It seems that Busby in predicting the response of the crown was enthusiastically attempting to cobble together a unified form of Maori government that he could present to the Crown as something with which the Crown could negotiate.

It was flattery, a “polite fiction”, but it was also a necessary expedient if peace and order were ever to be brought “kicking and screaming” to the backwaters of New Zealand.

It might have been relatively easy to discredit the He Wakaputanga claim, had the Treaty of Waitangi not made explicit reference to the now defunct “Confederation of United Tribes”(final draft- Littlewood document). And had it also not made clear that the Chiefs collectively held sovereignty, and that it was this sovereignty that was being ceded to the crown in return for the “rights and privileges” of Englishmen. (a little knowledge of the actual living conditions and ostensible “rights” of the English working class in 1840 might have given the Maori chiefs pause for thought! F. Engles) But having made specific reference in the Treaty of Waitangi to ‘The Declaration’ signed five years prior, we are compelled to consider the two documents together.

The contemporary notion that the chiefs did not cede sovereignty in 1840– including the 2014 Tribunal ‘finding’ to that effect -flies in the face of the practicalities of the Treaty, the entire context of tribal wars, the imperative of peace for Maori survival and the ongoing cultural revolution that was taking place in Maoridom, brought on by contact with European ideas religion and technology. It is quite clear from the record of the events that the chiefs debated at length and understood what was being sought and what they were signing.

The path to nationhood for New Zealand in those early years was eagerly pursued by the Maori tribes themselves. If there were no other documents, if there were no record of the pleadings made or the ideological framework of those early times; in that case it would be easy to accept the argument that…

  1. The ‘Confederation of the United Tribes of New Zealand’ was a legitimate organisation of the Maori Tribes with authority to speak for all Maori.
  2. That the claim to Independence was substantive in law and fact.
  3. And that the sovereignty they claimed in 1835 was not ceded to the crown in 1840.

But New Zealand is a young country and we still have a full record of those earlier times – despite the attempts of the government to overlook important documents like the Letters patent and Royal charter that created New Zealand as an independent colony with its own Westminster style government. Instead choosing to rely on the temporary expedient of the treaty of Waitangi.

Important dates.

  • 1831 Ngapuhi chiefs write to the King William to beseech him to be their friend and guardian.
  • 1833 The arrival of James Busby, Brittish resident.
  • 1834 Busby first attempt at unifying the Maori tribes, Creation of the Confederation Flag.
  • 1835 Busby composes He Wakaputanga the declaration of independence. Attempts to set up a confederation of tribes to form a government. The confederation is not supported and has no authority. He Wakaputanga does two things, it creates the Confederation of United Tribes, and declarers that the confederation holds and exercises sovereignty over the territory north of Thames.
  • 1839 30th July. Queen Victoria’s Royal Charter/Letters Patent claimed British Sovereignty over all the islands of New Zealand by the “Law of Nations” and placed New Zealand under the dependency of the New South Wales Government.
  • 1840 30th January. The arrival of Hobson in the Bay of Islands, Brittish Sovereignty claimed by the Law Of Nations (jure gentium) placed New Zealand under the laws and dependency of New South Wales
  • 1840 6th Feb. Signing of the Treaty of Waitangi. The United Tribes and independent chiefs cede sovereignty to the crown in return for the Queens protection and equal rights of British subjects.
  • 1840 16th November. The second Royal Charter separated New Zealand from New South Wales and made New Zealand into a British Colony with a Governor and Constitution
  • 1841 3rd May. The Second Royal Carter comes into effect.
  • 1860 the Kohimarama conference. At which many of the same chiefs that signed the Treaty returned to reaffirm their commitment to the queen.
  • 1878 Waitara. Final peace settlement of the Land wars. Once again affirming the sovereignty of the crown.

The movement to resurrect the 1835 declaration and to re-interpret the Treaty is a case of Presentism; the tendency to impose contemporary norms and expectations onto historical events without regard to the context of the culture of the time.

At the time the Declaration was referred to as “a paper pellet”; Governor Bourke of New South Wales , “silly and unauthorised”; Colonial Office. And more recently by contemporary historians as a “‘polite fiction” by Keith Sinclair or the comment from historian Michael King that the declaration ‘had no reality, since there was … no national indigenous power structure within New Zealand.’

All of these comments reflect a simple common sense reading of the Declaration taken in the context of the historical events of the time, and for 140 years this was the normal sense of He Wakaputanga.

Things start to get weird when you realise that the supposedly legitimate government in Wellington either cannot, or for what ever reason will not do anything about an organisation that is openly in treasonous rebellion against the government.

If the Wakaminenga Maori Government is fake, and their proclamations and trespass notices are illegal and without authority why does the government not bring charges? Perhaps it is as simple as they are doing nothing illegal. Anyone is entitled to believe what ever they like. I can believe I am the king of the world, and I can even gather around me a large cohort of believers to feed my delusion. Like a wacky religious cult, as long as I pay my taxes and obey the law, people are entitled to donate to what ever club, person or political party or church they like. I can print trespass notices and even issue passports, but they are meaningless documents, until they are recognised and respected by the organs of the state. Mere assertions of authority are meaningless without the power of enforcement.

There are at least three other Maori organisations claiming to be the legitimate government of New Zealand. Amongst these pseudo governmental structures there is a common legalistic thread. That being that they claim an authority superior to the Wellington regime not merely on the basis of the revisionist interpretation of the twin documents of Declaration and Treaty, but by virtue of what they allege is the inherent illegitimacy of the government itself.

Specifically that the New Zealand government became a corporate entity as a result of the 1986 Constitution Act. They assert that a corporate entity can have no jurisdiction over living men and women, sighting a 1795 ruling of the US supreme court to prove it …

“Inasmuch as every government is an artificial person, an abstraction, and a creature of the mind only, a government can interface only with other artificial persons. The imaginary having neither actuality nor substance, is foreclosed from creating and attaining parity with the tangible. The legal manifestation of this is that no government, as well as any law, agency, aspect, court etc. can concern itself with anything other than corporate, artificial persons and the contracts between them.” US Supreme Court Ruling 1795

US Supreme Court Ruling 1795

and just like that the government is illegal and irrelevant, and all we have to do is remind them of this salient point and they will happily leave us alone. Yes? Not quite.

Now this is where we get into the long grass, but hear me out – Apparently we are all ‘legally’ dead, this is so that the state -which is a dead corporation- can legally administer our affairs, tax us, make laws that we must obey and even trade us in much the same way as you might trade any other financial asset on the stock market.

This is a lot to get your head around but WMG and several other Maori sovereignty groups are leading the charge on these legalistic challenges to the authority of the state. It’s also the personal sovereignty movement that many European New Zealanders find so attractive about the WMG and for that reason sign up, overlooking it’s explicitly ‘racist’ registration process,- personally I would qualify for membership in group 2; ‘White European born in the British commonwealth”, but not group 1; Maori or married to a Maori or group 3, other people.

A European White with no Maori tribal affiliation can be adopted (whangai) into a tribe, and then helped through the process of extracting yourself from the system. Coming out from under the State which uses Admiralty Jurisdiction and maritime legalise to maintain what they call a legal fiction of your identity within the system. With the object of becoming a free certified living man/woman no longer answerable to the state and under the jurisdiction of Natural Lore only. An attractive proposition for sure if you can use your sovereignty to avoid speeding tickets and rates, doubly attractive if you can also gain access to a large amount of money held in what is called a Cestui Que Vie Trust.

Most Whites look past the glaring affronts to our identity, ignore the apparent reintroduction of Tikanga, Matauranga Maori and te au Maori culture and instead focus on the legitimate criticisms of government overreach, and the pursuit of personal sovereignty.

By these tactics and the preceding rational, Te Wakaminenga Maori Government are claiming that they alone are the only sovereign legitimate governing authority in New Zealand. A country that has already and without consent been renamed Aotearoa.

The bottom line, the He Wakaputanga is fake, for the purposes of a legal expedient the Crown pretended the Confederated Tribes existed so that they could cede a sovereignty they never had to the Crown in 1840. 174 years later the supreme court announced that the chiefs didn’t cede sovereignty 1840 after all. To which I would say correct, they didn’t because they never had it in the first place. It was always only ever a political expedient to facilitate a legal imperative.

Is there an overarching agenda?

In spite of the Maori sovereignty movements criticisms of the government there is a strange symbiosis, at least up to a point, between the government agenda and the Maori separatist agenda. The government is totally committed to Co-Governance; to the establishment of what the HePuapua document calls three “spheres of authority” Rangatiratanga, Joint, and Kawanatanga, being careful always to ensure that Maori interests have veto rights over Kawanatanga (the government sphere) if they so choose. To that extent we already have Maori government in New Zealand, but a shadow, covert kind of Maori government embedded in the bureaucratic State. All government departments are required by law to recognise the “partnership” model of the Treaty and to buy into ‘matauranga Maori’- Maori knowledgeand ‘te au Maori’ (Maori world view) in their processes and outcomes.

The Wakaminenga National Congress on the other hand will not be content with a bit of hand holding and Maori language signs around the place, they are more interested in completely supplanting the existing government altogether. Taking control of foreign policy, trade, finance and education. Overtly and in your face, allowing white people and other new Zealanders to become tribal members by adoption only. How many well meaning but naive New Zealanders are aware of just how far reaching and all encompassing this change will be? If this comes to pass, we will for all intents and purposes find ourselves living in a whole new country, with a different language, system of government and culture. And once that is in place, there will be no voting it out at the next election. Tikanga.

Broadly we have two entities, the ostensibly legitimate government, you know, the one we supposedly ‘voted’ for, and the Maori Governemnt. Both fervently working to undermine centuries of English common law and implement Maori Tribal rule.

One wonders whether the government questions or regrets the path it has set us on? Are they under the direct control of a foreign entity? Is it even more sinister; or is it merely the logical result of party politics in the age of MMP? Making deals with the devil for short term political advantage?

Party political advantage certainly played a part, but one never really wins a deal with the devil. In a political ecosystem defined by a Marxist media the Overton window is always going to be defined by an ever narrower range of political discourse. Thus eliminating major policy differences between the major parties. In this environment all parties support globalism, all parties support open borders and free trade, everyone buys into climate change and of course everyone believes vaccines are “safe and effective”! In such an environment the party that most pleases the more radical and sectarian elements of the minor parties will likely win the day. Hence the extreme lefts shameless expertise in deceptive language has put their ideology in the decisive role regardless of which party become the government.

MMP may have been touted as a means of bringing more voices to the table, but in practice it has worked very well as a tool for the major parties to get there selected members into parliament whether they are voted for or not.

And the Left? They have always had the propensity for radical action, weather it be Savage in 35 or Lange/Douglas in 84. One can argue about the extent of radical action taken, but Arden in 2017 was clearly something quite different. Overtly extreme far left, President of the IUSY, an acolyte and graduate of Carl Swabes Young Global Leaders forum. She made it clear from the start that she would use a “whole of government approach” to change New Zealand to align with globalist Marxist principles. Does that include governing for the best interests of New Zealanders? Not really, the feel good factor of virtue signalling on the international stage carries a lot of weight with these people. And that in itself tells us something. These international communists know they are involved in pushing a global revolution, and to the useful idiots like Trudeau and Ardern the fact that their own countries did not need globalism and the attempt to impose it would only harm the interests of there own people is not seen -by them, as any reason to doubt the overall moral purity of their goals. They will always appeal to and justify their actions by an assumed higher purpose. One that put’s their own people and countries at risk, but which is a small price to pay for “saving the planet” or ‘humanity’.

He Puapua is a product of the United Nations, the Labour governments implementation of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People. It hammers away at the foundations of New Zealand society creating division and discord, curiously in keeping with a culturally Marxian agenda. The advancement of the competing claims to sovereignty by Maori groups also works to de-legitimise the existing political structure. The former creates widespread racial discord, by creating a split grievance/guilt based society, the later fractures the government. All a rather convenient turn of events for a foreign power who’s perennial modus operandi has always been to collapse the structure from within so that when all is chaos and confusion, when violence is on the streets and people are going hungry. Then at the moment of social breakdown they present a solution. Their solution, the one they had planned all along. The globalist agenda of total control; and the people will thank them for it.

The government has done nothing to confront or counter the claims of the several Maori groups claiming unique sovereignty over New Zealand. Indeed these groups for all their anti government rhetoric, do not appear to have broken the Law. Far from it, they appear to go out of there way to stick meticulously to the letter of the Law, apparently in the hope that they will succeed in using the governments own laws against them. There is the Wakaminenga Health Council, The Mauri Nation and the Home Guard Global group.

I am reminded of an old maxim “my enemies enemy is my friend”. This however does not always hold true. It is quite possible to have two enemies both of which are also mutual enemies – a Mexican stand-off if you will. I’m not suggesting that that is the situation between the Maori groups, Government and ‘other New Zealanders’, I’m just saying that my enemies enemy is not always my friend! If I don’t like the government, and neither does the WMG, that fact alone doesn’t necessarily make Wakaminenga my best strategic ally!

Many New Zealanders are finding themselves at odds with this government and are are looking for a freedom oriented solution. We are inclined to align ourselves with any group that seems to be making headway against the encroachment of the government on our personal rights and freedoms (medical freedom, freedom of movement, freedom of speech etc). Before supporting a group that appears to be against the same things as us. We should first of all find out what we are FOR, what are OUR interests, and please lets stop pretending that we don’t have group interests. Everyone else does and so do we. Embrace it.

There may very well be an overarching design, a subversive influence, especially when you see different techniques used in different countries of the erstwhile West all working in there own way to bring about a general collapse of confidence in existing government structures. Whether by accident or design there does indeed seem to be a clear symbiosis between the government intent and the Maori drive to assert sovereignty.

Lets assume I am a standard common garden variety deracinated cultureless White man with no history and no identity. The white canvas on which other peoples paint their culture. Why not embrace co-governance? What’s not to like, white Europeans are always keen to promote the great benefits of cultural identity when it comes to other peoples, well here’s a chance to assume a cultural identity for ourselves, it’s not our own, but that’s ok, we can be adopted (whangaied that is) into the sanitized contemporary Maori world. It’s a contemporary creation of globalist convenience, bearing little resemblance to the realities of pre-settlement Maori life. The convenient benefit for globalist (read international communist) control is that Europeans will never again respond to the pull of their own kith and kin, they will never know Wordsworth, Coleridge, or Shakespeare and never appreciate the staggering contribution of European science and technology or appreciate the creative genius that gave rise to the classic works of art in music, poetry, architecture or painting. The blossoming of the European ethos over the last 500 years was far more than military conquest and global empire. If Europeans did have a little more understanding of their own identity with a little more Racial confidence and self respect, and this stands for all European populations around the world. The chances are, we would be far less likely to stand idly by while our history is denigrated, our people insulted and our countries overrun. A situation that globalist interests would find intolerable!

Should European New Zealanders embrace Co-Governance/Maori government?

It can seem confusing and contradictory to understand the globalist agenda until we realize the ultimate goal is the creation of a unitary global population, easily manipulable without the ability or even the desire to resist the imposition of a world State. A globally distributed strong self aware ethno-cultural identity like White Europeans is a terrifying prospect to the globalist conception of world socialism. Hence the UN support for small indigenous cultural groups combined with the ongoing denigration and undermining by any means possible of the prior global European population. This explains the apparent inconsistency with the UN at once supporting indigenous rights, race and ethnicity on the one hand whilst at the same time doing everything it can to destroy European Racial identity. It’s not that they hate culture passé, they just hate us.

To break off bite sized chunks of the collective global White population and have them identify as something else, even speaking another language is a great technique – along with mass migration and media promotion of miscegenation,- to perform a legally sanctioned, even morally virtuous form of soft genocide. It doesn’t matter who or what we identify with, in this case its Maori, but anything would do.

It way well be a reasonable decision to become a member of the Maori Government to take advantage of the pathway to personal sovereignty they make available to their members, or their principled stand against vaccine and mask mandates. Neither should there be any reason to turn away from your own faith or culture by becoming a member of WMG. However their web site does make it clear “A strong Maori cultural framework is part of living in Aotearoa Nu Tireni, and All peoples are invited to be part of and learn our values, history, customs, culture, and language as a thriving and living culture.” WMG.

I see no reason at this point to doubt that the co-governance agenda will continue to gain strength and the Maori sovereignty groups and will continue to become more influential.

The point here is to provide some clarity and perspective on why we are being presented with four or five different Maori groups now in New Zealand that are all canvassing for the support, moral, financial and ideological, of all New Zealanders

The WMG website talks about taking on their customs and culture, contemporary Europeans generally draw a blank when we think of culture, it’s something other peoples have but which doesn’t apply to us. This is a dangerous miss-conception, dangerous because a lack of understanding makes us easy meat for organizations such as WMG that can sign us up with a few sweet promises for something that we really have no knowledge of. What we bring to our communities is something we are completely unaware of until it’s gone.

We should perhaps ask the question “why do I not have a culture?“. Or “what is my culture?” . After many decades of educational indoctrination we now have a full spectrum demographic that believes that European culture is either irrelevant or unworthy. Most would be hard pressed to even come up with a description. One of the best books I have read on the essence of what it means to be European is ‘Sweet Dreams and Terror Cells’ by Frank Raymond, (an ethnic Indian) in which he delves into the numerous things we take for granted but which set us apart as a unique group on the world stage. See my review of his book here.

It may well be worthwhile joining WMG if only to pursue the sovereignty objective. However it is not the only way to pursue sovereignty and once we have considered the cultural and political aspects we may well find that there are better alternatives.

And when it comes to co-governance, no, we should not accept what they are calling Co-Governance. It’s an obvious fraud that should be rejected out of hand. We should build our own. That much should be obvious.

What is an Ideal Government structure for European New Zealanders?

The damage that has been done to our country over the Ardern years is permanent and irreversible- absent an unlikely counter revolution that is. From a cultural perspective they were always going to win against a target that simply wanted to be left alone.

What is an ideal governmental structure for Europeans? This is a highly emotive question that touches on race and the long history of struggle and war that led to the Europe of today. Many will say that the question itself is ‘Racist‘, to ask about a government for Europeans as if a system of government for them would not also work equally as well for any other ethnic group.

But here’s the rub, it’s quite obvious that all European countries have been facing a unique set of circumstances. It is well known that Demographics is Destiny, it is also the case that from 1965 the leadership of most European countries took the arbitrary decision to make their countries Multicultural and what started out as a trickle after the second world war (British nationality act 1948) became a river and now since 2010 an avalanche. In this country we used to have an annual net immigration in the vicinity of 15,000. Even that was too many for some, but after John Key opened the borders in 2013 that figure ballooned to 70,000 PA on average. Raw numbers aside it was also clear that despite the insistence that our points based system was fair to all there was a clear shift to Chinese and Indian immigration and away from British and European immigration. The decision to become multicultural in New Zealand was never even discussed, they just did it and announced that this is who we are now, even behaving as if this had always been the case.

Although Maori activists continue to talk about pakeha society as if we are the only other group here, the none-Maori none-European section of the country is likely to be larger than the Maori identified population by the time the 2023 census results come out. This question of multiculturalism is central to the issue of global government. To achieve by governance a fait accompli, the mixing up off all the populations of the world, to establish the liberal dream of perfect equality. Then when no significant difference can be detected between the population of one country and the next they can happily declare borders unnecessary, and if there are no borders then a central global government will appear as the obvious and common sense solution to all our problems, voilá, One World Government and the New World Order will be here to stay.

It seems that no system is perfect and any system of government can be corrupted. How does that happen? By what agency does a government system end up destroying the people it is elected to protect? Systems of government are made by people, to govern people. And they are all fallible with ego’s and weaknesses. The American experiment in Constitutional Republicanism showed great promise for the first hundred years. “A Republic… if you can keep it” the quote attributed to Franklin shows the misgivings the founders had right from the start. That country now is so utterly riddled with corruption that it doesn’t by any reasonable metric qualify as a country at all. Like all the countries of the former First World the US government has become truly toxic to the interests of it’s own people.

It is also by no means certain that liberal democracy is any more in the interests of European people than a dictatorship or communism or fascism or monarchy or any combination of the above. The record of the democracies in the post war period has proved progressively more deleterious to our people as time has gone by. Zio-shills like Jordan B Peterson can wax on about how the global level of poverty has been dramatically reduced over the last 50 years, yet remain completely silent on the ill effects of globalism on European people world wide. We now have published almost daily, video’s of young white people, men women and children being beaten up for being white, a state of affairs that is totally ignored “for the sake of diversity”. We remember wistfully the years of the 50’s in New Zealand when a working man could support on a 40 hour working week and support a stay at home wife and four kids, and still have time and money for trips away and holidays with the kids.

Does it even make sense to talk about a system of government for white Europeans in the context of multicultural society? NZEuro is still the overall majority, 64% (2018 census) we can expect to see that number decline in the new census results from 2023. Liberal democracy has certainly done nothing to protect the interest’s of native Europeans, in fact the enthusiasm with which it is lauded as the sacred cow of political development á la Francis Fukuyama certainly leads me to suspect that they may have an ulterior motive in securing a global system that is so easily manipulated. At the opposite extreme, National Socialism is presented as the epitome of evil, much worse than Communism, ignoring the 100 million dead at the hands of the socialist social engineers.

We have to realize that these are not pigeon-holed invariant pre-packaged systems that one can select like a pair of shoes. It’s more like a spectrum of ideas, the many variants of Fascism, from Mosely to Franco to Mussolini or Hitler, one size does not necessarily fit all. But you will have noticed i’m sure how vehement and rabid the opposition is when anyone suggests even the most modest limitations on universal franchise. Liberal democracy provides a facilitative environment for minority group interests to agitate for advantage over the interests of the majority. We are coerced into believing that tolerance is a virtue. So to tolerate our freedoms being taken away provides us with a virtuous ‘halo ‘ while others benefit. Reminiscent of psychological co-dependency, we have to get something out of this trade, a feeling of virtue and worthiness while the oppressor wins a physical victory for themselves at our expense. Any system can be corrupted and turned against the interests of the people but only secular pluralism in the guise of Liberal Democracy comes with a built in smoke screen. When the others turn against you, you know who to blame. With this, apparently it’s our own fault, because we voted for them, right?

What do we want and expect from a national government? National defense would probably be top of the list, negotiating with foreign powers,- terms of trade, access to foreign markets etc. the generation and management of Economic policy including fiscal and monetary policy, the regulation of the Banks. Immigration policy should be set with regard to the national interest. National infrastructure projects like hydro electric dams, national railways and highways require major commitments beyond the reach of local government that can only be satisfied by a national effort. Hospitals schools and education could also be funded from the national purse.

Perhaps any system can be perverted because man can be perverted. National identity and cultural identity breed a willingness and ability of the people to defend themselves – through their representatives in government. By fracturing the national identity through Multiculturalism and Maori activism, liberal democracy handicaps the ability of the people to even recognize a national identity much less defend it.

Elisabeth Rata has inadvertently stated the problem…”What it (liberalism) cannot tolerate is the removal of its very foundations – those principles of universalism and secularism that anchor democratic institutions into modern pluralist society.” Correct, it’s the pluralist society that’s the problem. And the ‘democratic state’ will not tolerate any criticism or attack on universalism or secularism. Hence the state sanctioned attack on Posey Parker just yesterday.

We are never told by the promoters of universalism and pluralism why these systems are so much better than the homogeneous societies we once lived in. We are supposed to not notice, or regard as a mere coincidence that those times also coincided with peace and prosperity and a cohesive national identity. There is a malaise abroad in the west, a susceptibility to arguments that appeal to virtue and an assumed higher morality. The all encompassing humanitarianism of Christianity, the radical egalitarianism of communism, and the ‘equality’ of liberal democracy. Recognizing that ANY system can be corrupted, we can still study the source and mechanism of the current collapse and construct a system that mitigates as far as possible the same problems reoccurring.

Small accountable government, confederated communities and a cohesive national identity. But about what can one build a national identity? Race, religion, values? We hear in the West much about our vaunted “Values”, much talk without ever enumerating what these are or any explanation of why they are so good! Elisabeth Rata from Auckland University again explaining the values of an academic education in science, mathematics, and the humanities. “It is to be hoped, though this cannot be assumed, that they will have the critical disposition required for democratic citizenship, one that is subversive of local culture and disdainful of ideology.” So it seems that the ideal secular citizen has no culture no ideology no religion and no identity. We are left with open borders, human rights, equality, equity and diversity. Funny how all of these values when you see them written down all negatively impinge on the interests of the parent or host culture. Our culture. Is it any wonder nobody is willing to fight to defend such insipid lies! Secular pluralism is so fundamentally anathema to the idea of a confident prosperous independent country that one might reasonably invert every one of it’s precepts in order to create the sort of country we actually want!

Neither do we want a religious theocratic state. We tried that and had a thousand years of the European Dark ages.

The title of this section asks for the ideal form of government for Europeans. To state the obvious first of all the government must recognize the existence of Europeans as an ethnic identity. This simple act alone is a huge cultural change, to have some idea of who we are referring to when we say ‘We Us and Our’. The answer obviously is one that recognizes the existence of Race and ethnicity and works to preserve the best interests of that particular racial demographic. With good will and the right people almost any system will do as long as the basic ideological proposition is held sacrosanct. The various system options are merely attempts to mitigate the likelihood of corruption of those core fundamentals.

Practically if it is at all possible at this late stage. A repeal the treaty of Waitangi act 1975 and its amendment 1985 is absolutely essential, combined with the introduction of a genuine system of accountable democracy. We have a workable example in the Swiss model of direct democracy. One hurdle for the introduction of any system of accountable democracy in New Zealand is the imperative of civic involvement. Most New Zealanders (or is that Aotearoan’s) are simply not interested enough to take part. We have to rise up from the emotional level of depression and demoralization to interest and then action. We are too used to the cycle of being shafted and then complaining about it and being shafted again. It will only be by that strength of will. What Nietzsche called the Will To Power that we as a country and a people will be able to save ourselves..

Conclusion

It is the contention of this publication that the concern for the welfare of the European people of New Zealand and round the world is legitimate. Born of a common sense observation of massive demographic changes in only a few short years, many organizations have sprung up with the intent to inform the public and gather support for there views. All these groups have faced the same hysterical reaction from the main stream media. It is always the intent here to speak to the issues minus the rhetoric. To explore the best way forward openly championing the interests of our people.

Europeans are not indigenous to New Zealand, neither are Maori. The idea of White Nationalism and the creation of an exclusive home for White Europeans has more moral legitimacy in the context of the European indigenous homelands than it does in a former colony that was already occupied when our people settled here in the 1800’s. The global anti-white agenda and the constant media harping on the evils of whiteness has created a rapidly deteriorating social condition for young white people in many parts of the world. (North America, England, France Germany)

The Black on white violent attacks and generally anti-white hate crime goes on behind a total media black-out. Young white English girls raped by immigrants are told to “shut up for the sake of Diversity” as if diversity for the sake of diversity is it’s own sacred justification and to hell with the consequences. So this is the situation and the rational behind the White Nationalist drive for at least one exclusive homeland and strong immigration controls in the previously White European homelands. That nationalist tendency is also a major focus of Maori separatist ideology.

It has been obvious to this writer and many others on the Right of New Zealand politics that there is a strong common ground between Maori activists and the European Right -what the media loves to call the “Far Right”. The value of people and place, the recognition of culture and race and the history of our respective peoples.

The march of the Marxists through the institutions of the west, now confronts New Zealand with an existential crisis. All of us need to understand that; that the threat of degeneration into a tribal totalitarian apartheid system is real. And the failure to take remedial action now will permanently damage the prospects for all New Zealanders for generations to come.

The Maori people faced a critical existential crisis once before, they recognized that threat and had the courage and foresight to undertake a cultural revolution to secure their survival and a future for Maori children. They consciously turned their backs on the negative aspects of their culture, they freed the slaves and embraced Christianity and the Law.

Once again there is a real need for all of us this time, Maori and European to do the same thing; to step over the divisive rhetoric. To turn our backs on the contrived and manufactured culture of guilt and grievance, and stand for equality before the law. Not just an amorphous generalized “Equality” that flattens culture and difference, and ignores the things that give us meaning but the Equality before the law that was guaranteed by the Treaty of Waitangi.

The principle drive must be not just an arbitrary drive for “equality” which opens the door to the left wing delusion of equality of outcome, an objective for which millions have been slaughtered. But Equality Before the Law. And a recognition of our legitimate right to access and practice our own culture as we see fit.

But will the Elite Maori establishment, so well funded and rewarded for their promotion of division going to take up the banner of Equality Before the Law, and stop pursuing massive Treaty settlements for personal and corporate Iwi gain? Only a grass roots movement of all New Zealanders, unilaterally rejecting the narrative and voting accordingly has any chance of bringing enough political pressure to bear to change the direction of this country.

Nationalism is by definition opposed to globalism. If we wish to preserve a Nation of our own we are by definition Nationalists, not White Nationalists or Maori separatists. Just Nationalists. The word ‘nation’ is derived from the Latin nātiōn- (stem of nātiō ) “birth, tribe,” equivalent to nāt(us) (past participle of nāscī “to be born”). So the word itself defines a people, and an interest in working for the best interests of our people whoever they are. Maori and European, in respect of our independent identity but united under one Law as New Zealanders.

Leave a Reply